Jeff Â­ we seem dangerously close to a "BUT THESE AMPS GO TO ELEVEN!"
exchange. And I think most others on the list are understanding what I'm
driving at hereŠ.
Btw Â­ My apologies to Justin, Joe and any others who may have thought this
was an implicit attack on the credibility of the CDT. Far from it!!! Rather,
it was meant to illustrate the dangers of cherry picking data points only
when they fit one's personal narrativeŠ
Alan
From: Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org>
Date: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 11:30 AM
To: Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>
Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Questionable Research
Resent-From: <public-tracking@w3.org>
Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 16:31:40 +0000
> Alan. IITF is not a privacy group and has a consistent position against
> privacy regulation.
>
>
>
> Jeffrey Chester
> Center for Digital Democracy
> 1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 550
> Washington, DC 20009
> www.democraticmedia.org <http://www.democraticmedia.org>
> www.digitalads.org <http://www.digitalads.org>
> 202-986-2220
>
> On Nov 14, 2012, at 11:24 AM, Alan Chapell wrote:
>
>> My apologies, Jeff. Perhaps I didn't make my point clearly enough.
>>
>> You attacked the credibility of Mr. Castro's findings based upon his
>> connections and funding from industry - "Cisco, Intel, Qualcom, Oracle, H-P,
>> Microsoft and others."
>>
>> By that logic, then it would make sense that you have similar issues with the
>> credibility of the work conducted by the CDT --- as the CDT also receives
>> funding from those companies.
>>
>> My point --- is that either you have issues with CDT's credibility, or you
>> only questioned the credibility of Mr. Castro's research because you don't
>> happen to like his conclusions.
>>
>>
>> From: Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org>
>> Date: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 11:15 AM
>> To: Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>
>> Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
>> Subject: Re: Questionable Research
>>
>>> The study is from IITF--not CDT.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Center for Digital Democracy
>>> 1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 550
>>> Washington, DC 20009
>>> www.democraticmedia.org <http://www.democraticmedia.org/>
>>> www.digitalads.org <http://www.digitalads.org/>
>>> 202-986-2220
>>>
>>> On Nov 14, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Alan Chapell wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jeff Â­ all of the companies you cite below also provide funding for the
>>>> CDT. Are you questioning the credibility of the CDT's work as well?
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Shane. Mr. Castro works for an industry funded and connected group,
>>>>>> which has worked to weaken privacy rules--including for children. It's
>>>>>> board includes Cisco, Intel, Qualcom, Oracle, H-P, Microsoft and others.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's important to discuss scholarly research that is relevant, but also
>>>>>> identify the conflicts of interest which shape their role.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jeff
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jeffrey Chester
>>>>>> Center for Digital Democracy
>>>>>> 1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 550
>>>>>> Washington, DC 20009
>>>>>> www.democraticmedia.org <http://www.democraticmedia.org/>
>>>>>> www.digitalads.org <http://www.digitalads.org/>
>>>>>> 202-986-2220
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Nov 9, 2012, at 3:47 PM, Shane Wiley wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> An interesting article discussing the lack of objectivity in the research
>>>>>> paper John just circulated:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> New Survey Shows Some Privacy Scholars Lack Objectivity
>>>>>> BY DANIEL CASTRO <http://www.innovationfiles.org/author/danielcastro/> Â·
>>>>>> OCTOBER 14, 2012
>>>>>> URL:
>>>>>> HTTP://WWW.INNOVATIONFILES.ORG/NEW-SURVEY-SHOWS-SOME-PRIVACY-SCHOLARS-LAC
>>>>>> K-OBJECTIVITY/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ÅA survey funded by Nokia
>>>>>> <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2152135> and
>>>>>> conducted at the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology shows what has
>>>>>> become increasingly apparent to those who follow this line of research:
>>>>>> some of the most prominent academic researchers have ceased to retain
>>>>>> even a veneer of objectivity in their research on privacy. The authors,
>>>>>> Chris Hoofnagle, Jennifer Urban and Su Li, state that their survey shows
>>>>>> that ÅAmericans have a low level of knowledge about [Do Not Track], but
>>>>>> prefer that it mean that websites do not collect tracking data.Ë
>>>>>> I wonÄ t mince words here: this is shoddy research.Ë
>>>>>>
>>>>>> NOTE: Please follow the link above to read the rest of the article.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: John Simpson [mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org]
>>>>>> Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 1:13 PM
>>>>>> To: David Wainberg
>>>>>> Cc: Walter van Holst; public-tracking@w3.org
>>>>>> Subject: Re: ISSUE-187 - some thoughts on using javascript
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've attached as a PDF file an interesting research paper from the
>>>>>> Berkeley Center for Law and Technology about what people expect from DNT.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----------
>>>>>> John M. Simpson
>>>>>> Consumer Advocate
>>>>>> Consumer Watchdog
>>>>>> 2701 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 112
>>>>>> Santa Monica, CA,90405
>>>>>> Tel: 310-392-7041
>>>>>> Cell: 310-292-1902
>>>>>> www.ConsumerWatchdog.org <http://www.ConsumerWatchdog.org/>
>>>>>> john@consumerwatchdog.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Nov 9, 2012, at 9:59 AM, David Wainberg wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/8/12 5:52 PM, Walter van Holst wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/8/12 9:17 PM, Vinay Goel wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Walter,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree with you that the logical solution would be to store them
>>>>>>> together
>>>>>>> in the UA preferences. From what I understand, though, the major UAs
>>>>>>> would likely not implement this, though.
>>>>>>> I probably should have spotted that in the list archives before, but
>>>>>>> have missed it. I cannot speek for the UAs, nonetheless all research on
>>>>>>> user opinions on tracking suggests that they are much more inclined to
>>>>>>> go for a all-out DNT:1 than for DNT:0, which makes me assume that any
>>>>>>> exception mechanism is unlikely to be used often. Sadly not all research
>>>>>>> in this field is publicly available, so we have to make do with what is.
>>>>>> What credible research can you cite that is publicly available?
>>>>>> Unfortunately we don't have much useful information on what users really
>>>>>> want, or would want if they properly understood the technology and their
>>>>>> choices. And it's certainly not very helpful to cite research that isn't
>>>>>> available.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>